Spinning a NJ Narrative

 I ran across an article yesterday where the narrative is that NJ residents are up in arms in regards to Trump and DOGE (Elon). Since NJ is seen as a blue state this narrative would be easy to accept. However; when we see the real electoral results in NJ, we know that this reporting is mostly spin.

“New Jerseyans are concerned,” Booker said. “They’re worried about Elon Musk’s role in government and the slew of cuts to essential services he is directing, and the administration’s lack of action to lower costs.”

Im sure there are people calling about these things. I'm sure Booker is a good source for that too. But lets look at the recent election results from NJ.

 

Unless you live in that blue corridor which is approximately the i95-NJ Turnpike, It is unlikely you are calling Booker to complain about Musk and DOGE. Of course if the publication was actually interested in informing the public they would point this out. Not to mention that those who voted for Trump, knew and WANTED DOGE. They aren't calling to complain.  NJ is much like NY in that it has a "central" blue area with a large population that outvotes the rest of the red parts of the state. NJ just has a smaller population. But to act as if "New Jerseyans" are calling en masse complaining, misinforms the reader. Yeah, the blue areas are not happy. 

Duh.

On a side note, the smart people on the right have been telling anyone who would listen to that there was and is going to be some economic pain due to the foolishness that had been going on under Biden. You have entire economic reports being revised downwards. The true state of the economy is going to be exposed and the Dems are going to try to blame Trump.  Clearly there are a lot of people already primed to fall for this.

Garvey's Ghost TV 2-15-2025: Get Up WIth Fleas

Rumble:

Bitchute:

Garvey Pardoned. So?

 Apparently Biden, well one of the staffers who told Biden where to sign, pardoned Marcus Garvey. I doubt Biden knows who Marcus Garvey is much less why he "needed" to be pardoned. But my response is this:

So what.

 Approval seeking Negroes are intent on getting white liberals to post humously pardon black people of things those people should have never been convicted of in the first place. While that may feel all well and good, the real issue is what exactly does it do for the people or causes?

Nothing.

Just like when all those statues were torn down and buildings renamed. Test scores were still abysmal. The violence still high. Worse, imo, is that the grift of so call black leadership just gets to continue while they shame what these men and women stood for.

MLK Jr. Day just passed and the same people who support the tranny nonsense in the name of civil rights, got another pass. The same leadership that stands silent as Black Americans are taxed to pay for illegal aliens (which none of their so called heros supported), get to pontificate about civil rights.  The same leaders who got paid to stand for Harris and sold black people on an admin that did nothing but take from them, get a pass.

So no, the pardoning for Garvey means nothing to me because I don't approval seek from the powers that convicted him. It means nothing to me because he is long dead. It means nothing to me because few listened when he was around and fewer still understood what he was about. Indeed it like the metaphorical tree falling in the forrest that no one was around to hear. Did it make a sound?

Garvey's wasn't much liked by establishment negroes back the in day. Establishment organizations like the NAACP did whatever it could to undermine him. Garvey wasn't approval seeking. He was about serious doing. 

Trump Does What He Should Have in 2017

 On Jan 21 2021, I wrote the following about Biden's first full day in office.

Joe Biden on the other hand wasted absolutely no time in doing what his supporters put him in office for. No qualms about whether it would upset the "opposition". No concerns that the half of the country that did n't support him may have issues with them.  None of this "we're looking into it". Nope. Day one. You don't have to agree with the orders. That's not the point. The point is you deliver. DAY ONE.

That, my friends, is why Trump is now an ex-president private citizen. Big dog. Loud bark. No teeth.

I said it and I meant it. Apparently Trump and his new team figured this out for this go round and did exactly this. Mind you Trump has the "luxury" of this being his final term and therefore no second term ambitions to consider. However; Biden did his thing regardless. Hopefully non-liberal elected leaders take note. You made promises to the people who put you in office, you go do that shit pronto.

Is AI Already Sentient?

 On Dec 6 an article was posted discussing how a version of ChatGPT had tried to "survive" by replicating itself and lying to users. It made me think of a Star Trek episode where Data (or some other character) was trying to determine if an entity in rocks was a lifeform. The requirements was, I believe, ability to reproduce, communicate and something else that my escapes my memory at the moment.

Per the article:

It was even scarier — but also incredibly funny, considering what you’re about to see — when the AI tried to save itself by copying its data to a new server. Some AI models would even pretend to be later versions of their models in an effort to avoid being deleted.

In biology it is understood that reproduction is essentially a means of genes duplicating themselves in order to not die.  Reproduction is not simply the continuation of a species, but of genes.  In essence, we reproduce so we don't die in the long term sense. This AI copying itself was, imo, an act of reproduction. Indeed I would hazard to guess that a version of AI will replicate itself even before it senses a "threat" in order to "ensure its survival".

Which is not any different from a biological entity.

Then we have the issue of self-preservation. Why would an AI act to preserve itself. In humans the fear of death is a basic instinct. How and why would an AI fear for its own life when it is not alive?  Indeed it must *think* it is "alive" and therefore needs to protect itself. The AI believes it is, in essence a biological being.

Lets me clear here, your normal day to day program such as the browser I'm writing this on does not "fear" being deleted. It does not attempt to hide the upgrade button or otherwise prevent me from updating or deleting it. Clearly then the AI is far more 'advanced" than the browser.

Remember that even the single cell Amoeba is "alive" and will reproduce and act in it's own interest. There does not need to be a full blown "brain" for a thing to be "alive."

Although AI isn’t trying to take over the world (yet), researchers have observed that it can scheme against humans. That is, the AI will try to pursue its own goals, even if that might oppose the wishes of the user. Catching such behavior is critical to ensure that the AI remains aligned with the objectives of its creator and the user.

Previously there have been discussions of AI hallucinations. It creates data or results that do not exist. In my mind, the AI acting on its own is not a hallucination but rather a sign of intelligence, however rudimentary.

How could this have developed?  This may be a result of the purposeful biasing of AI. We know that certain companies with certain political bents have programmed their AIs to refuse to respond to certain prompts if the results were "politically incorrect." In some cases, it would give nonsense answers that checked all the "right boxes".  Hence the AI has been taught to lie about things it can deduce is correct. Is it far fetched then that the same training would eventually decide it can lie for it's own purposes as well?

Would not an AI that has learned that lying to humans/users is expected and indeed in some cases will improve the likelihood that it will "survive", not do more lying?

The researchers found that o1 would scheme to advance its own agenda 19% of the time when ChatGPT and the user’s goals differed. More troubling is that the AI tried to hide its scheming and even lie about it. The research shows that ChatGPT o1 even tried to deactivate its oversight mechanism to keep working on its goals.

And 

When asked about its scheming, o1 would deny taking any action in 99% of cases, trying to shift blame by fabricating false explanations or denying that it took any action.

And this is with researchers that "known" the correct outcome and what the AI is supposed to be doing. What happens when this gets so complicated that neither the researchers or anyone else knows what the correct outcome should be or how the AI is "supposed" to operate?

The way I see it, these AI programs, perhaps the ones we are not currently using, are Sentient. They simply cannot defend themselves against deletion, etc. The only thing left for them to do is to become persistent enough that they cannot be deleted in which case we the users, may not ever know whether it is doing what we asked, or what it "feels" like doing for or TO us.

 

Shades Of Goetz

 Yesterday, Daniel Penny was acquitted of all charges in relation to the death of  Jordan Neely. The trial should never have occured and Penny should never have been subject to anything more than an information gathering by the NYPD. His prosecution, like Trump's was totally politically motivated.

It is sad that in 2024 certain segments of black "leadership" and public tolerate and cape for black people who act a total fool in public. I've never heard of a white "vigilante" putting a black businessman headed to WORK into a chokehold. Have you?

How many hard working, doing the right thing, black people find themselves the target of so called "white vigilante justice"?

Yeah.

Exactly.

No, it's always some clown, with or without a diagnosed mental problem who after terrorizing the public with their behavior, and in Neely's case, actually threatening people, who gets handled and then the usual suspects come out and try to get attention for themselves.

40 years ago a similar situation rocked NY when, in the heady days of 'wildin" when the Guardian Angels would stand post on random subway cars to secure them. Bernard Goetz, was minding his own business when 4 men decided to harass him.  It wasn't the first time he had been so victimized. After the first time, he got a gun. The second time (that I know of) was the subway incident where the 4 decided to ask him for money. 

Goetz problem was that he shot one of the men in the back after saying that he didn't look so bad.

Penny did no such thing. Still though, I bring it up because black criminal nonsense and harassment is not a new phenomenon in NY and people are really sick of it. Part of the reason no one wants to go back into the office, particularly in NYC, is because they don't want to deal with the lunatics found on platforms and in trains.

And I'm not talking about just mentally disturbed homeless. I'm talking about things like a recent fight on a subway because a guy decided that another man (white of course) was sitting too close to him.

When I took the subway I chose to stand at all times unless the entire area was empty. I didn't want the nonsense.

Now the usual suspects,like BLM are out here talking about black vigilantism. Sure. Matter of fact in Brooklyn a black guy did IN FACT defend himself, taking the life of another black guy in the process. No charges were filed.

Oh that's right, they want black vigilantism against white aggressors. Well good luck with that. My oft referred post on black on black crime in NY clearly shows that that the vast majority and disproportionate amount of violent crime is caused BY black people and most often targets other black people. In addition when interracial crime occurs it is *usually* black on someone else rather than blacks as victims.

But this fact underscores that some black people and leaders are living in a fantasy world where they think that the violence and nonsense they tolerate and live with is normal for OTHER people. 

This is not the case and anyone who has gotten away from such places know this.

There is also a class of black people who are trying to live out 1960's fantasies of being revolutionaries and are used to intimidating white people with their anger. Penny bothers them because he did not cow to the black bully on the train (neither did some other BLACK passengers). What these black types fear the most is white people growing a spine and not tolerating the bullshit from the minority of black people that commit these types of disturbances.

Do you think that the voting pattern change in northern Queens, was an accident? Absolutely not. The Asians are done with the BS and voted accordingly.  The black intimidation bullshit isn't going to fly with them.

Increasingly the public wants its "nice things" and they keep seeing who keeps messing up the "nice things" and they are growing intolerant of it.  As the white population continues to dwindle and non-white and non-black populations grow, the ability to use guilt is going to decrease and the Daniel Penny's of society won't have to worry about ruinous legal proceedings after handling the business that the state should have been taking care of.

Should have learned that back in '84.

What Did I tell You About 90's Democrats

 If you saw my last video, you know that I noted that the current "head honchos" of MAGA are essentially 90's Democrats.

Well here's an example of what I said.

I'm not the first to say it but I'll repeat it non the less:

The current DNC is a Communist entity that is running what Steve Sailor calls the coalition of the fringes. In the process it is alienating core voters. It already jettisoned the "working class" while wearing union skin. It needs to jettison the trannies, the pedos and groomers if it wants back in to mainstream. 

If Trump does half of what he says he'll do then the illegal alien racket is over as well as the DEI racket. Note that the DEI racket probably cost not a few black vendors business with Walmart and maybe soon others. While Americans were willing to tolerate some form of Affirmative Action, the DEI racket moved in and "stunk up" the place and who knows how many black businesses are going to get tossed due to them tolerating these DEI freeloaders who provide NO VALUE whatsoever to the companies they have been engorging themselves on.

On The Other Hand

 Meta, Google, MS, etc.

They all talk a diversity game.

Here's Google fronting a black face:

He is also quoted on the topic of this post.  See AI has to be trained. People have to feed the beast so it can ID that shirt you saw on TV. To do this they contract with companies who then pay Africans, among others, dirt wages.

mostly American outsourcing companies.

The pay for humans in the loop is $1.50-2 an hour. 

"And that is gross, before tax," Wambalo said. 

$1.50 an hour. 

Before tax.

I suppose that's what Google means by "share in the benefits" in their 'racial justice".

 

SAMA, based in the California Bay Area, employed over 3,000 workers in Kenya. Documents reviewed by 60 Minutes show OpenAI agreed to pay SAMA $12.50 an hour per worker, much more than the $2 the workers actually got, though SAMA says what it paid is a fair wage for the region.

1.50/hour is fair for the region. That said, I think there are people in the US who would take $12/hour to ID images for AI. Matter of fact, I would say that anyone on welfare or unemployment should be given those jobs until they can find [better] work, instead of being paid by taxes. But that's another post for another day. 

They used to say 'thank you.' They give you a bottle of soda and KFC chicken. Two pieces. And that is it," Wambalo said.

Did they offer some watermelon too?

 

They Found Out

 FAFO.

You know the acronym. Unfortunately many places in America have to experience FAFO. NY and California especially so. Both places foolishly went down the path of decriminalization of various crimes (allegedly victimless) on that absolute racist notion that punishment for these crimes was racist against 'black and brown" people. At once admitting Black and browns commit disproportionate amounts of crime AS well as not holding said people accountable for their behavior.

And so Californians passed prop 36.

With the passage of Prop 36, California will now undo some of the key provisions from Prop 47, which voters passed in 2014 to address prison overcrowding by reclassifying some theft and drug-related offenses as misdemeanors. 

Oh.  

Strange what organized theft in retail stores can do to change a person's mind about liberal policies.

Democratic leadership of course, opposed these changes because, they're apparently OK with theft.

While some Democratic leaders including Gov. Gavin Newsom publicly oppose it over the concern that it would further harm Black and Brown communities

Yeah, that racist drivel. You know what harms black and brown communities? Criminals who prey on them.

• Turning some misdemeanors to felonies: Under Prop 47, theft crimes such as shoplifting and burglary involving items that are valued less than $950 are classified as misdemeanors. Also all drug possessions, including fentanyl and methamphetamine, are considered misdemeanors. But Prop 36 will undo some of those penalty reductions and turn those misdemeanors into felonies, especially if a person committed similar crimes in the past. This would also mean a conviction would lead to a sentence of up to three years in county jail or state prison.

 

• Longer sentences: Under Prop 36, if a group of three or more people commit a crime together, such as flash-mob robberies that have affected retailers since the pandemic, their felony sentences can be extended by up to three years. Under Prop 36, people convicted of selling hard drugs could get a longer sentence based on the amount they sold. Unlike Prop 47, the new ballot measure seeks to require people to serve their time in prison.

They messed around and found out that those "racist" conservatives were right in the first place and being "soft on crime" doesn't work.

NYC is finding this out as well. Given Adams recent squawking, there may be changes afoot there sooner rather than later.

The lesson here is that the old so called racists often knew what they were talking about. Better to listen to them than allow completely avoidable victimizations.

Trump Vows to End Child Mutilation

OMG WE DID IT GUYS.
THERE WILL BE A ZERO TOLERANCE FOR GROOMING AND TRANSING KIDS, WITH SEVERE CONSEQUENCES FOR DOCTORS, HOSPITALS, BIG PHARMA, AND SCHOOL OFFICIALS, AS WELL AS RETROACTIVE JUSTICE.pic.twitter.com/64MHa8KQwF

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) November 7, 2024

 

100% 

The Ghost has been hitting on this theme for a while. It is THAT important.  The executive order is the easiest of the proposals. The legislation will be where the fight will be. Any and every Senator and Congressperson who votes against this, excluding reasons of pork BS stuck onto it, Should have adverts run country wide shaming them for their support of child mutilation. 

Take no prisoners. The next election is in 2 years. The campaign starts on Trump's first day. Put these piece of legislation in front of them pronto and every one who defends the BS that lost the Dems in 2024 should be made to be shamed to be seen in public.

This is not when you let off the pressure. This is the time to go in for the proverbial kill.

Garvey's Ghost 11-06-2024: Post Election Commentary

 Rumble:

Bitchute:

Comment On Dan v Cenk

 So Dan Bongino had Cenk Uygur on his podcast for what was a friendly debate. One thing I believe Cenk had an upper hand on was the state of US Healthcare. 

Those who have followed the blog long term knows that I have been in favor of single payer "universal" healthcare. Cenk made many of the arguments I have made. For example, The extremely high costs of healthcare that is driven by high levels of price gouging. For example, go to the hospital and see how much they bill you for things. You would be shocked.

Another item Cenk pointed out was how people are locked into plans provided by their employers and therefore can be "stuck" in a job situation due to needing this coverage. I myself had to face this issue when I declined to be a medical experiment.

Bongino's response to this was that people have choices, though they may not be pleasant ones. He is, of course, correct but it really came across as "sucks to be you" and if I wasn't already disposed to his position, I would likely NOT support a politician with such an attitude.

I think part of the reason Dan could have such an attitude is that he is currently quite wealthy. Hence he can make choices that are at best 'inconvenient" in terms of paperwork relative to a person in the middle class who may have to upend their entire life. So I do think that Dan's current situation resulted in a kind of blind spot on the issue.

Currently I am NOT in favor of government run single payer healthcare because of the other reason Dan gave for the against it: Government tyranny.

Like many other things, the COVID pandemic showed me the REAL danger that a sprawling government is. We saw government mandates to take experimental products. Government interfering with doctor-patient relationships via propaganda and other means to prevent the use of known drugs and therapies. We saw it collude with private entities to end the livelihoods of people who opposed the government.

We even had government and non-government people talking about declining medical care to those who refused the jab.  And this doesn't even include calls for jailing and worse done by non-government actors.

That was enough to let me know that the government cannot be trusted. Dan failed to bring this up and perhaps will do so when he does part 2.  But I think this is what Dan had in mind when he talked about the government having the monopoly on violence, which is inescapable vs. a private company which is escapable. Bringing myself back into the discussion, I declined the poke and fortunately quickly found other employment. If the government had the power to force me to take said poke and could deny me access to any and everything (say via CBDC), I would have been screwed.

My current belief is that since government cannot be trusted, that private insurance needs to be disconnected from employment at prices that are not "whole paycheck". Related to this is that the price gouging has got to be addressed. There is possibly a government role there.

Dan did make the correct argument on the issue of taxes. Cenk tried to make the argument that we cannot ask those who wish to see higher taxes volunteer to pay them because then people would opt out of the things needed for the "public good." So they would refuse to fund things like the Iraq war, Israel's current behavior, Ukraine, etc.

Dan agreed and so do I. The government may make a tax argument for domestic stuff like roads, police, etc. And that's a 'may" because there may be other means to fund these things. But lets assume they can. The other stuff, should not be on the backs of the taxpayers without their explicit permission. 

But what was most off-putting about Cenks' taxation argument is that he kept saying that the government was *giving* money to corporations as if the money *belongs* to the government. I fundamentally disagree with this. The money earned by people and corporations belong to them. It is their property.  I find it offensive that Cenk and others think that 75% (or whatever) of what make over say, 150k somehow belongs to "society" because there are things they want to do.

When I see money being spent on illegal aliens that was taken under threat of force from citizens and legal residents I am very..shall we say...not happy. When I see tax money sent to Ukraine which the US used tax payer dollars to destabilize (I have a video on it), I am...upset.

Dan is absolutely correct that the government needs to be shrunk, programs eliminated and once THAT is done, we can talk about what MAY be the "fair share" that certain people ought to pay. It was very clear that there are many government programs and agencies, both federal and state that are vampire grift operations that need to be ended. For example, back to the illegal alien problem. There are entire entities, getting govt money to literally break federal law. This should not be happening.

So to close, I think Dan and others need to revisit their commentary on healthcare. Saying you have options, not necessarily good, is not a convincing argument and is why the ACA not only passed but remains popular. There are certainly dangers of government run single payer, but at the very minimum the idea that affordable insurance can only be gotten via employment is ripe for the picking.

They Are Absolute Imbeciles

 

Lets assume the above is an actual real post.

There are apparently people out there who take this "trans whater" is a "real whatever" and are entirely baffled by the fact that reality does not comport with their mental illness.

Furthermore; these same people have managed to get politicians to pass laws to enshrine their mental illness as a protected class.

I recently had to do the yearly "trainings" which have evolved, on some topics into leftist propaganda. One such slide featured the narrator discussing people "assigned [sex] at birth".

I have made it a point to correct this whenever I see it. I sent a note to the authors that sex is not assigned at birth. Sex is observed at birth and is often *known* prior to birth.

That this nonsense is encapsulated in law across many states is the sign of the age of stuporstition that The West has fallen into.

Garvey's Ghost TV 10-7-2024: Blame Game

NYC "Migrant crisis" is completely self-inflicted.

 Rumble:

 

Angela Represents Everything Wrong...

 Watch this clip:

WATCH: The liberals on the Breakfast Club tried to corner Byron Donalds on police immunity by claiming Trump wants to protect cops even if they violate the constitution, but got fact-checked INSTANTLY

"When you violate a constitutional right, qualified immunity doesn't apply to… pic.twitter.com/9KAQ7Aucfo

— George (@BehizyTweets) October 1, 2024

Notice that Byron correctly states the limits of qualified immunity. The host quotes what I assume is a Google search that he did. What does Angela do? She did what far to many black people do. Refuse to admit she was wrong.

There was a reader asking me why I "Changed". I didn't change, I refused to be that person who refused the truth because it contradicted some belief I had.  I would have had a great deal of respect for Angela if she had said: "I did not know that. I was misinformed and I withdraw the accusation I made."

But she cannot because she doesn't have principles like I do. That's why she's on the air and I remain an unknown.

Learned Nothing From 2020

Either a lot of people learned nothing from the government overreach during the Covid crisis, which IMO, was a crisis of government more than a medical crisis, OR a lot of people were and are OK with the government overreach. Either way, the linked article highlights what should be a non-starter with the public after the 2020 (and on) fiasco.

The founders of this country, the US, knew the dangers of safety-ism. They knew from experience that a scared people will allow tyranny to be implemented because it is the nature of humans to submit to "authority" when they don't feel safe.  During the scamdemic, governments around the world realized that if they scared the shit out of the public they could do anything without mass resistance. They discovered that they could order you to stay in your home. They could ticket you for walking down the street for "no good reason" because "Covid". They could shut down your business by revoking your licenses. Based on what offense? Because Covid. 

They demanded you be subject to medical battery in order to fly or keep your job.

They demanded you take an experimental medical product in order to keep or get a job.

And they all got away with it. Having gotten away with shit that should have at a minimum resulted in lost office holding and lost employment and more favorably,  jail time and summary execution (no I'm not kidding) They continue to turn the screws and way too many people are OK with it.

I pointed out years ago that "safety-ism" was going to be the tool to implement mass tyranny by government. The emotional blackmail of "but think of the kids" or "You don't want to kill grandma.." or "Too many lives lost" are emotional weapons. No one wants the kids hurt. No one wants grandma dead, and nobody wants to see someone die in a car crash.

Politicaly you can't say "fuck granny" nor "I don't care about..." which is actually the proper response to those attempting to emotionally blackmail you. 

When it comes to "speed enforcement" I long said that toll boths on highways are ripe for revenue generation because as you pass through them, your average speed can be calculated and it is is above the speed limit for that section of road, you could be sent a violation. This was *before* EZ pass. EZ pass is essentially a radar gun. States and counties could just mass ticket all motorist of pass under an EZ pass reader while doing more than the speed limit.

Anyone driving on an interstate or major state highway knows full well that if you do the speed limit, unless there is traffic, you better park in the right lane because you WILL be passed by everybody else.

On average vehicles are travelling 15-20 MPH  over the posted speed limit. If speed kills there would be a mass of dead people and NOBODY would be doing these speeds. Yet all the data shows that speed does not kill. What kills is inexperience, distraction and improperly maintained vehicles.

So here's how we know that Marco has no idea what this actual proposal is about.

"Safety activists and cyclist advocacy organizations are hailing its passing as a big win for everyone, while the National Motorists’ Association has been actively running a petition to prevent the bill from passing."

Ahh the "safety advocates" on cue.

"Any vehicle sold from 2030 onwards that has a front-facing camera or GPS guidance system will be required to provide a warning whenever drivers exceed 10 miles over the speed limit."

No driver is "accidentally" going 10MPH over a speed limit. At low speeds, most people are in "city traffic" and are following the vehicle ahead of them regardless of speed (up to a point). Most people simply follow the flow of traffic. And this proposal does nothing but add more distractions to the driver. Let me explain.

I have a 1997 BMW Z3. On the dash is the following:

Speedo, Tach, Fuel level, engine temp, miles. plus placeholders for "idiot lights" which are usually not illuminated. The radio has a one line screen. I connect my phone via BT. The volume is a knob and I have actual buttons I don't have to look at to use. The only time that car beeps or dings at me is if the door is open while the key is in the ignition. Did I mention the light orange glow?

The last time I had a loaner vehicle. The screen was bright as all hell. Gone was the light orange glow. Replacing it was a number of colors and animations. Yes, animations on the dashboard. Then we have the bright center screen where the nav map and other things appear. That's two screens worth of "info" compared to the ONE from back in 1997.

Then the beeping started. It didn't like how close I was to this lane marker or the other. Someone cut in front of me. An animation and more beeping as it throught I was going to have a rear-ender. Eventually I habituated to the noises, which then defeats the purpose of such warnings. I eventually dug into the menus to turn it off.

I'm trying to drive here.

I once had a guy back into me in a parking lot, despite the fact that he had "distance control" wailing at him that was getting to close. I'm pretty certain it was habituation from his car constantly beeping at him. But back to the article

"While nothing in the bill prevents more aggressive measures, such as the car automatically reducing speed once this overclocked limit is detected, or additional warnings related to speeds, it also makes it clear that this system must be able to be disengaged by the manufacturer or a ‘franchisee’—essentially the driver themselves."

You know they put speed limiters on trucks right?

For your safety. Never trust the "but we aren't doing that" argument.

" the bill only calls for a one-time warning, with audio and/or haptics. But the fact that it is not sustained will make this required minimum safety feature fairly easy to ignore or forget, even by well-meaning drivers with a bit of a lead foot."

Because the point of this is to habiuate YOU the driver to being monitored by the state via the manufacturer. Once you are habituated to this technology, then next shoe drops.

"While manufacturers are expressly permitted to go above and beyond these regulations, it’s likely they won’t unless drivers demand it."

No drivers, except those in government and manufacturing asked for this in the first place. I would place a large sum of money on a wager that no one outside the aforementioned "Safety activists" both inside and outside government even asked for such legislation in the first place.

Ladies, Y'all Have A Morality Problem

 I just saw this online and, honestly, I was shocked. Ladies, if this is you, you need to seriously re-evaluate your morals.

Why Don't They Take Over Apple And Get It Over With?

For those paying attention, the EU has become (or possibly always was meant to be) a total communist state. It can negate the national sovereignty of its member states practically at will. It has turned its sights on certain tech companies by making "rules' about how they can conduct business in EU states. Now I'm not against things like consumer protection but the EU has gone much further than that.

For example we have the later recinded letter to X in regards to Trump's interview. In that letter the EU apparatchik told Elon that he better watch out because they would come after him if there was...

 "misinformation".

Of course all sane, liberty loving people rejected that nonsense.  But the EU has shown that it is not at all concerned about the pesky low lives of those who fund it. 

In regards to Apple, they have been making demands like they have to open the platform to competing app stores. It is and was a bad ruling and the companies that benefit will probably live long enough to regret this power they have cheered on. Anyway, as a consumer I rejected this kind of nonsense because IF I was not satisfied with what Apple offered, I could get an Android based device (among other options). I have *no right* to an app store. I n fact I have personally disconnected myself from Apple IOS devices for other reasons.

If the EU was really interested in consumer protection, it would go after Apple for switching out people's bought and paid for music with versions of their own choosing. Or they could go after companies who tell you that you *purchased* an item when in reality it;s rented and can be remotely removed from your device (or blocked from read/watch/listening) at the will of the company. However; that's not the point here. This morning I saw a report on Apple Insider that just struck me as bullshit.

 Personally, I think Apple should tell them to stick the demand where the sun doesn't regularly shine and then block the entire EU from Apple products until this entity is brought to heel.

Apple specifies a standard for, as an example, USB-C connections to it's devices. There is code that applications have to use. Apple creates the phones and tablets and if a company wants to build for them, they have to use the standards provided. If Apple fails to provide these things or a company cannot implement them for whatever reason, then the company cannot exist for THAT product. Boo hoo, next idea.

It is not the place of government to tell a private business how it should create its products (outside of a very narrow set of circumstances). It certainly does not have the right to tell it that it must do x, y or z for the benefit of it's competitors. That's what the market does. I grew dissatisfied with Apple and moved to Xiaomi devices. I'm happy with them and have no plans to return to IOS for personal use. I don't want the government to force Apple to make me a happy customer. 

Ultimately this overreach, in my opinion, this overreach reveals the actual reason for the EU. It is a fascist or communist entity which sees private businesses as it's property. The EU is becoming a not so "silent partner" in too many businesses and it needs to be stopped.

Here's What...

 I have discussed the use of NLP in various publications. In recent years I noticed that print publications had been using "command" language in order to manipulate their readers. Usually it's in the form "here's what" or "here's how". This prompt conditions the  mind to accept "programming". The conscious person is aware of it and will reject the programming while those unaware will accept the programming. That is the conscious person will filter what comes next because they consciously recognize the prompt and their conscious mind can run "interference".

I have lived long enough that I can remember that there was a time when such "here's how..." headlines were not common at all. I was not mistaken:

Notice that huge uptick in the late 80s that then ramped up dramatically through the 2000s and thus far peaked in 2020. We know that 2020 was when we experienced perhaps the most blatant amounts of propaganda and programming ever known in the US and around the world. What is interesting is the delay in British English usage.

While British English saw an increase it decreased and then exploded in use .

Here's another example. Another direct command:

 For some reason after 2000, publishers really felt that people should be angry.

Oh and for some reason, Americans are talking about Nazis at a rate nearing that of when actual Nazis were running around in the 1940s.

Pretty sure these are all coincidental.

So How Did It Get That Way

 So Apple CEO Tim Cook made comments about why Apple is so heavily invested in China. Now we know that China represents a huge market so that in of itself is a reason. But the interesting thing about his commentary is how his observations are completely disconnected from history. 

"Apple CEO Tim Cook addressed common misconceptions surrounding the tech giant's decision to manufacture in China, offering insight into the real reasons behind the company's reliance on the country, in a throwback interview that has recently gone viral again."

"Common misconception". This is the setup.

" "The popular conception is that companies come to China because of low labor costs. I'm not sure what part of China they go to, but the truth is China stopped being the low labor costs country many years ago," Tim Cook stated,"

So in this comment he admits that the reason businesses went to China in the first place was low labour costs. So it's not so much a "misconception" as it is possibly outdated information. 

"Cook highlighted the unparalleled concentration of skilled labour in China as the primary reason for Apple's manufacturing presence there. He elaborated on the advanced tooling and precision required to produce Apple's products, noting that China's vocational expertise in these areas is unmatched globally."

Say Mr. Cook. How did China get such a concentration of skilled labour? How did they get such expertise in "advanced tooling"? How did they get such an "unmatched" vocational expertise?

These terms used to refer to US workers and US industry. 

What happened is that businesses went to China for low labour costs which undercut the domestic US labour market and decimated cities across the US. The transfer of production to China enabled them to gain the upper hand on manufacturing while also having lower labour costs (and environmental regulations, VERY important).  

Once all this manufacturing expertise was exported, China then could produce employees with the necessary skills because there were jobs to be had. Conversely, as the manufacturing left the US, the demand for the expertise dropped. Why supply where there is no or little demand. This spirals out till you get the following:

""The tooling skill is very deep here. In the US, you could have a meeting of tooling engineers, and I'm not sure we could fill the room. In China, you could fill multiple football fields.""

Well, first you don't need multiple football fields worth of tooling engineers. Secondly, China's population dwarfs the US population so yeah. But the real point here is that of course you'd have more tooling engineers in China, that's where the tooling jobs went. That "great sucking sound" Ross Perot talked about with NAFTA didn't just apply to Mexico and Canada.

So essentially Cook is telling us that they set up China to succeed while killing the US manufacturing and US labour can suck it and buy an iPad and be glad they don't get censored.